Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 29



Category:Ivory Coast martial artists

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Ivory Coast martial artists to Category:Ivorian martial artists
 * Category:Ivory Coast mixed martial artists to Category:Ivorian mixed martial artists
 * Delete Category:Ivory Coast sportspeople
 * Nominator's rationale: As per Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 29, rename to, then delete  as redundunt to . SeveroTC 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename / delete per nom for consistent use of proper adjective. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rough fish

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * rough fish


 * Nominator's rationale: Inherently subjective term, as described in rough fish. Mangostar (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, depends entirely upon the locale. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a legal definition of "rough fish" on the main page for rough fish, as used by the US game/wildlife. You are correct that each locale will consider what is 'rough' differently, and any fish that is considered rough in any area would be appropriately listed here, but this is a reason to KEEP the category, not delete it.  The main article makes this fact clear, that many fish are only considered rough (and or invasive) in certain areas.  A catagory of ALL fish that are considered rough in one country or another is useful and encyclopedic as it makes the information easy to find, and allows for cultural differences to be researched for each fish.  Each article (fish) in this category explain how and where that fish is considered food and where it is a pest or not considered a primary food fish.  The articles that are thin on this info need work adding it, as this is an important fact.  The fact that the term is subjective doesn't disqualify it from being a category as long as the category inclusions are based on objective reporting of what is "trash fish" in different areas, not any editor's personal opinions.  In short, it is the best way to categorize the cultural differences in perception of fishes as food sources, and while thin at this time, serves the purpose well.  It needs improving but is a valid categorization, per the legal definition of multiple countries, even if the species listed by those countries are not the same.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the fact that the species considered "rough" varies from one location to another is a strong argument against the category, which can provide no context. A list article can specify what fish are considered rough in what locales and provide reliable sourcing for each such locale. Relying on a US-centric legal definition indicates bias. Otto4711 (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested using US specific definitions. I clearly stated that we should NOT use US specific definitions, but instead be all inclusive.  Many categories or words have different meanings in different cultures.   Even something as simple as "beauty" varies from culture to culture.  The fact that different countries see the same fish differently shouldn't come as a shock.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the category approach versus a list is that a category can only provide an alphabetical listing of fish that are somewhere considered rough. A list, either in the main article or in a standalone List of rough fish, will allow for an explanation of where each fish is considered rough and why. Far superior to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. Otto4711 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't argue that a List Of can provide more context (and is a good idea), but that doesn't prevent there being a category as well. I guess I don't see the policy that says "this category shouldn't exist for rough fish", and no one is showing me the policy that would offer clarity on this issue. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OC is the relevant guideline. What's rough in one country or state isn't rough in another and that subjectivity is why the category shouldn't exist. The same reason why we don't have Category:Delicious vegetables or Category:Ugly buildings. Otto4711 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to labor the point, but those categories aren't legally defined, and 'rough fish' *IS*, and more than just the US. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 12:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Otto4711 and previous similar nominations. When the criteria is based on local preferences, it is not appropriate for a category.  A list better serves this function since you can provide the needed references and clearly list the locals where this designation is appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Survivors of shooting

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Shooting survivors  . Kbdank71 13:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * survivors of shooting


 * Nominator's rationale: Newly created redundant duplicate category. It's a subcategory of Category:Shooting victims which is for people who were shot and survived, which already has Category:Deaths by firearm as a sub-category. One Night In Hackney  303  15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The point is that "shooting victims" includes those who died; saying otherwise on a category page doesn't make it so. This subcategory parallels Deaths by firearm, for those who didn't die.  -- Zsero (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The point is that you've created a duplicate sub-category, when you should have asked for the existing one renaming. One Night In Hackney  303  16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a duplicate of the existing subcategory, it's its exact parallel. Shooting victims can be divided into those who died and those who didn't.  The former were in a subcat, the latter were not.  Now they are, and the main cat can be empty except for odd cases that are hard to decide which subcat they go in.  And some people can be in both, if they survived one shooting and died from another. -- Zsero (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The existing category was for people who survived, so is your new one. Therefore, it's a duplicate. It's not rocket science. One Night In Hackney  303  16:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The existing cat includes all victims, dead or not. The subcat is only for the live 'uns.  -- Zsero (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Shooting survivors. The current name is vague IMHO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. That is ambiguous and would solve nothing. -- Zsero (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see where the nominator is coming from and I believe a rename would be most appropiate. This idea actually came from someone else I've spoken with, who pretty much convinced me that the use of another sub-category could clear the air on what constitutes as a survivor. If this is truly not the case, then, Zsero, make sure the non-survivor categories are described. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, my only involvement here is because I noticed that the description for "Shooting victims" was utterly incomprehensible. "Shooting survivors" is not an improvement on "Survivors of shooting", on the contrary it creates ambiguity where there wasn't any.  There's a reason WP cats are generally named "X of Y" or "X from Y".  -- Zsero (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Category:Shooting survivors (which is what I suggested to Sesshomaru a few days ago). Zsero is basically on the right track in his/her analysis of the rationale for this category, but the current name is ungrammatical. "Shooting survivors" is not in the least ambiguous, imo; in fact, it's construction is parallel to that of the parent cat, Category:Shooting victims, and other similar sub-cats of Category:Victims. Cgingold (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Shooting survivors Lugnuts (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Shooting survivors is certainly ambiguous. It sounds more like a bloodthirsty activity than anything else!  Or, since cats have no punctuation, it could refer to the making of a TV show!  And yes, "shooting victims" is ambiguous too.  -- Zsero (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! Thanks for the humor. Well, I suppose the 2-word phrase "Shooting survivors" would be ambiguous, as you suggest, if it wasn't part of a category name -- i.e. if it was completely disconnected from that crucial contextual clue. But I really doubt that anybody who comes across it in this context would seriously entertain the possiblity that it could have such an absurdly unlikely or even farcical meaning. Cgingold (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Basketball teams in location

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename all. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though WP:NCCAT does not explicitly recommend a naming style for teams, the parent categories such as, as well as recent discussions about hockey and baseball teams indicate that these should be changed accordingly. Note that I have changed several country cats from basketball clubs to basketball teams. I don't feel strongly about it, but, it seems more consistent. Neier (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to


 * Rename all as nominator. Neier (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename I agree - all categories should be "X in Y," just like articles. 02:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koavf (talk • contribs)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British-Germans

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:British people of German descent. Kbdank71 13:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:British-Germans to Category:British Germans
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match other cats in Category:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom. Philip Stevens (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments (1) The category preamble says it's for German people in the UK and for British people in Germany. (2) I am British and don't think any of the terms 'British-German', 'German British' or 'British German' are in common use. (3) Why not consider Category:British people of German descent (which is clear) in line with the cfd below (together with Category:German people of British descent)? Occuli (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Work out WTF the category is supposed to be for, clean up/split, and rename unambiguously as others in the tree. - Bs of G descent or Gs of B descent. It should not be both. Nom is no help at all. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose Category:Britons of German descent and as a second choice (as it looks its the more popular) Category:British people by German descent - both assuming British nationals of German ancestry/national origin is what is being listed Mayumashu (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Category:British people of German descent (not "by") - except for the very confusing Edwin Dutton, these seem all to be British people. "Britons" is to be avoided. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Britons by national origin

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename: Standard name is 'British people of... descent' Philip Stevens (talk) 09:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Britons of Georgian descent to Category:British people of Georgian descent
 * Category:Britons of Antigua and Barbuda descent to Category:British people of Antigua and Barbuda descent
 * Category:Britons of Afghan descent to Category:British people of Afghan descent
 * Category:Britons of Russian descent to Category:British people of Russian descent
 * Category:Britons of Saint Lucian descent to Category:British people of Saint Lucian descent
 * Keep the former naming is more concise and consistent with similar lists for other countries such as category:Swedes of Norwegian descent, Category:Russians of Italian descent, Category:Americans of Dutch descent, and so on. Mayumashu (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom; Briton is less and less used, in WP and elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom; I've never heard a British person describe themselves (or anyone else alive in the last millennium) as a Briton. There might have been ancient Britons mingling with Picts. Occuli (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's cause a person's not going to waste their breath with the extra syllables by saying "I'm a Briton" when one can say "I'm British". "Briton" is a correct formal written form and really should be used when writing but won't be because the of (perfectly valid) influence speech has on certain formal written lexical forms. Mayumashu (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Britons of Barbadian descent

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Britons of Barbadian descent to Category:British people of Barbadian descent. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Britons of Barbadian descent to Category:British people of Barbadian descent
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, No need for two cats with the same purpose. Philip Stevens (talk) 09:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * reverse merge, as per reasons in above nomination Mayumashu (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom, ditto. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom, ditto. Occuli (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of New Zealand descent

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:People of New Zealand descent to Category:New Zealand expatriates
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, In theory, there's a difference between these two categories; the first is for people born overseas to New Zealand parents, and the second for people born in New Zealand but achieving notability overseas. In practice, the first category by the definition I give would be entirely unpopulated; New Zealand is a young country and people born overseas are less likely to consider themselves as New Zealanders. I suggest either a merger into the latter category, or perhaps just fold both these categories into the parent Category:New Zealand diaspora.- gadfium 06:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for a number of reasons, the main being that there s no need to provide factually inaccurate information (as the nominator him/herself acknowledges, not all people of N.Z. descent are expatriates) for the sake of keeping all names (of notable New Zealander diaspora) on the same list on the same page.  Mayumashu (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Keep". My father was born in New Zealand; I was born in the UK. Until I moved to New Zealand, I would have classified myself in the first but not the second of the two categories that it has been suggested should be merged. Had I stayed overseas and had an article on Wikipedia (which is not impossible), that article would have been in the first category. As such, I disagree with the nom's assertion that the first would automatically be empty. Grutness...wha?  00:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Natasha Bedingfield seems to be in the first but not the second (b. in UK) and there are various NZ rugby coaches/players who are doubtless in the 2nd but not the first. (I assume that people of New Zealand descent excludes actual New Zealanders.) Occuli (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grutness's reasoning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * manifestations of god in the bahá'í faith


 * Nominator's rationale: This is a repeat of a previous category that was deleted, previously Category:Manifestations of God. See this log for the discussion. The term Manifestation of God is used in the Baha'i Faith to refer to what most people (and Baha'is) call Prophets. So this is similar to Category:Prophets in Islam. I'm nominating for deletion because this represents a very fringe POV and is being used on pages like Jesus, Muhammad, Noah, Abraham and others, a use that seems promotional and not appropriate. It is true that Baha'is consider Jesus to be a Prophet, but that is not the issue. The category doesn't provide any useful categorization, and the information of who is or isn't considered one is already on the article Manifestation of God. By the way, I'm a Baha'i. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The previous category (also my creation) has been renamed and the articles have been sourced; this covers some of the prior objections. As far as those who are still detractors, this category is essentially similar to the one mentioned above (Prophets in Islam), and a variety of other religious figure categories, such as Category:Roman Catholic saints or Category:Buddhas; I see no compelling reason why this should be deleted while those remain. I am honestly confused at the apparent "promotional" nature of the category, and I did not make this to evangelize the Bahá'í Faith, but to make a category that is similar and appropriate as the others mentioned. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't understand the agument for deletion here. Baha'i is a significant faith. There is no more reason to remove a category that includes its prophets than there is to delete the comparable Islamic and Roman Catholic categories. I am bemused by the claim that the "category doesn't provide any useful categorization". The category tells us the status of the person in Baha'i, and is therefore just as "useful" as the other religious categories. Paul B (talk) 09:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but it's not a notable perspective about Jesus, compared with the various beliefs about Jesus or Muhammad that exist among the majority of humanity. It would be nice if it were more notable, as it's an elegant theory of the prophets, but as a category, right now, it doesn't have due weight. --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The category is undue weight for the vast majority of articles that it is included in. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with Cuñado and Jeff, insofar as, while maybe not intended to be promotional, it isn't a category that represents numerically significant views about Jesus. I think it's a case of undue weight.  The Bahá'í Faith is significant as a religion and community, and "punches above its weight class" in world diplomacy, etc., but in terms of perspectives on specific prophets (eg. Jesus or Muhammad) the Bahá'í perspective is an extremely minor viewpoint.  It's appropriate to mention in the Bahá'í article, and it'll be there in "articles that link here" but the category is not notable or helpful. --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - No different than Category:Prophets in Islam or Category:Buddhas. Zazaban (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - While it's a remake of a previously deleted category, it has removed the original flaw in the category that caused it to be nominated for deletion. I understand your mentality here Cunado, but I don't agree. Cheers tho. Peter Deer (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Peter Deer. Additionally, if it's being misused on some pages, then the delete key there is appropriate. Deleting the entire category seems overkill. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Speaking of which, the user subpage User:Netscott/Muhammad is in this and other Muhammad-related categories and I can't figure out how to get it out of them; can someone help me here? I posted on the user's talk two days ago, but the page is still included. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep so long as there are other categories for significant figures to particular religions. --Lquilter (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm undecided, the cat name is different from the one previously deleted because it specifies that the scope is the Baha'i faith - which I think does neutralise it somewhat. As for whether we should have cats reflecting extreme minority perspectives, I don't know... are there any guidelines about this?  ITAQALLAH   23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - nowhere near a defining characteristic of any of the people so categorized, with one possible exception. Someone thinking about Moses or Noah for instance and asked to list off some defining characteristics is highly unlikely to come up with "manifestation of God in the Bahai faith." An article that discusses and lists these manifestations is appropriate. Otto4711 (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Regarding Otto4711's comments above, I wouldn't say that most of the categories of the manifestations would be considered "defining characteristics." When you think of Noah, for example, do you immediately think, "Oh, he was in Paradise Lost"? I believe this is a useful category, and contrary to Cuñado's statement, it does contain information not in the main Manifestation article; that article doesn't have a comprehensive list, so for people (like me) who don't know who all the manifestations are, this category is useful. --Managerpants (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If most of the other categories on a particular article are for non-defining characteristics, then those categories should probably be brought here for discussion. Categories are supposed to be for defining characteristics and this category isn't. If the list article isn't comprehensive (is the category?) then it should be made comprehensive, not have its lack of comprehensiveness used as an excuse for a poor category. Otto4711 (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll let the consensus decide whether or not this is a "poor category." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Managerpants (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Baha'i Faith accepts the past religions, so all of the prophets mentioned in the new and old testaments, and all the prophets in Islam could theoretically be in this category. If the category remained but it's use was restricted to Baha'i prophets, then it would only go on two articles, and thus is not useful. I'm sure there are a dozen religions and world views out there that consider Jesus to be a prophet, but having that belief doesn't justify a category for each religion.
 * Another solution would be to keep the category (perhaps rename is to "Baha'i Prophets"), and add it to the articles Category:Prophets in Islam, Category:Prophets of the Hebrew Bible, Category:Jesus,  Category:Gautama Buddha, and Category:Krishna. I would rather delete it though.  Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with that, though, is that renaming it to "Baha'i Prophets" changes the meaning (and thus the content) of the category. Yes, theoretically all of the prophets of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam could be in a "Baha'i Prophets" category, but not this current category, which is only for Manifestations of God. The ones you mentioned would be considered minor prophets, which is not the same thing at all. --Managerpants (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The major and minor Prophets are considered the same. See Directives from the Guardian, pg 58. Also, the term "Manifestation of God" is synonymous with the word prophet. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm talking about. That reference is referring to Prophets with a capital P, which indeed are the Manifestations of God. It is not referring to prophets with a lowercase p, which would not be manifestations. It's saying there is no distinction between someone like Muhammed, who founded a religion, and someone like Saleh, who did not, but who are both still considered Manifestations of God. However, both Muhammed and Saleh would be in a higher station than, for example, Confucius, who is considered a prophet (lowercase) and thus not a manifestation. --Managerpants (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood the reference. There are major/minor, greater/lesser, independent/dependent, and so on... The quote says that minor Prophets have a different station but are still essentially the same. There is no third category of minor-independent Prophets. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Britons of New Zealand descent

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Britons of New Zealand descent to Category:New Zealand expatriates in the United Kingdom
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, These categories serve pretty much the same purpose of connecting New Zealanders who live in Britain to category:New Zealand people. The parent categories of Category:New Zealand expatriates and Category:People of New Zealand descent should also be merged. The most common naming convention for New Zealanders overseas would appear to favour Category:New Zealand Britons as the name for the merged cat, however the naming conventions for Category:British people by ethnic or national origin are mixed. gadfium 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the people listed on the page are not expats but, as the naming denotes, Britons of New Zealand ethnic/national descent Mayumashu (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reaons given in the related nomination above. Grutness...wha?  00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename Category:Britons of New Zealand descent to Category:British people of New Zealand descent (per cfds above). Natasha Bedingfield seems to be in the first but not the second (b. in UK) and there are various NZ rugby coaches/players who are doubtless in the 2nd but not the first. Occuli (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments and Grutness's comments in related nom above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian American football players

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Kbdank71 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * indian american football players


 * Delete - Nominator's rationale: overcategorization as an intersection of a sport and an ethnic group (as it is meant for American football players of Indian ethnicity). ("Sportspeople of Indian ethnicity" could be started I suppose) Mayumashu (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to per  (soon to be renamed to . - Neier (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment These players are not citizens of India, but Americans and Canadians of Indian ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayumashu (talk • contribs) 16:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. So, these would actually be Indian American players of American football, which I agree is overcategorization; so Delete per nom. Neier (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:American players of American football, Category:Sportspeople of Indian descent (at least). Occuli (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * New Proposal: There's no real need for this overly specific category, so Upmerge to Category:American players of American football and to Category:Indian American sportspeople (which I am about to create as a sub-cat of Category:Asian American sportspeople and Category:Sportspeople of Indian descent).  Cgingold (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with upmerge but to Category:Players of American football for at least one Bobby Singh, is Canadian and Category:Sportspeople of Indian descent Mayumashu (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Settlements on the A38 road

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * settlements on the a38 road


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete, these places are not defined by being on the A38 and there is a list already. BencherliteTalk 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; nondefining and likely to get unwieldy if applied to larger settlements that have many major roads passing through them. Postdlf (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Find a Christian church

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * find a christian church


 * Nominator's rationale: I'm really not sure where to start with this one. I the header is to be believed, it looks like an attempt to make a duplicate, though it currently contains one article, two templates, and two user pages. The one article contained is equally strange, containing as it does only headers and templates. Can't see any logical reason this should be kept. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I saw this and puzzled over what it was and what to do about it; I'm glad you nominated it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP -- I have proposed it have a better name link already, and the template with is explaines these are for church bodies or Christian denominations (not church buildings) as "" is.--Carlaude (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have Category:Christian denominations. Postdlf (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No case is being made as to why a list would not work here.  In effect the main article is a list and it seems to work.  While the speedy rename of Category:Church directories proposal fixs some of the POV issues, it is not a valid reason and I'll remove it from there.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant to Category:Christian denominations. SeveroTC 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundant to already existing categories. From the category name and the information on the stub template ("Template:Church-directory-dev") and the template (Template:Christian Church Directory, with "Find a Christian Church" as the label), it is self-evident that this is all part of an attempt to create a directory. However, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a directory. See WP:NOT. Wikipedia includes only articles about notable organizations, not all organizations, and so will never be adequate as a directory. --Lquilter (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We are only including denominations/organizations that already have an article-- and not even all of them-- or those much larger, i.e. they should have one. This will not be anything covered under WP:NOT and it has been reqested at WP:Christianity. It only takes 10% of the denominations to cover %90 of the churches. See the first pages (again) at Christian church directory and Christian church directory and Christian church directory of the United States. --Carlaude (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) If it's not intended to be comprehensive, then "directory" and "find a..." are not the appropriate terms to use -- in fact they're misleading, since one expects a directory to at least attempt to be comprehensive. If it's solely a repeat of a listing of the contents, then it seems redundant of the preexisting material. If it's solely a redundant listing, and it has a different name, then it's confusing to boot. (2) WP:MOS has some helpful information on titling articles and content. In general, we should strive to avoid including meaningless words. The verb "Find" here is meaningless and non-descriptive. There is no finding agent other than the list. Since many things on Wikipedia are lists, including "Find ..." at the beginning of each of those article titles would simply add useless verbiage to all those lists. (3) Perhaps if you provide a link to the WP:CHRISTIAN request that would help us better understand what your intent was. --Lquilter (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already proposed a renaming above to remove "Find a". I do not understand your concern. No one in any format has ever attempt a totally "comprehensive" directory or claimed to have done so-- thus no one would expect a "comprehensive" material. Most denominations  are very tiny, but nearly all churches are covered by the large denominations.  The idea is not to (necessarily) to find a particular church you already know about but to find a local churches with certain traits that you do not yet know about by linking to the denominations and their "locate a local church" page that they typically have. The links to the web page and locate a local church page will be new-- i.e. not redundant. The request is at WikiProject_Christianity/Article_requests.
 * I don't know how to make it clearer to you. (1) "Directory" is a particular type of reference, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Anything that implies directory (such as "find ..." ) is therefore inappropriate. It's good you've proposed a rename, but if the function is still a "directory", then name or not, it is inappropriate for wikipedia. See WP:NOT. (2) Even if it's not a "directory", I don't see how this category (and related templates) adds anything, since Wikipedia already has numerous finding aids and indexes relating to the various religious topics. Hence, my comments (and others) that it is redundant. --Lquilter (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I tracked down the request. It did not ask for a category to be created and as for the request fo an "article" - while it was posted - it should not have been. As a memeber of the Maintenance Department of Wikiproject Christianity, I have taken the request down. This does not belong in wikipedia and project resources could be better spent elsewhere. -- SECisek (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SECisek -- that's really helpful. I looked at the page but couldn't figure out what Carlaude was talking about! (Wait, I see it now -- diff -- but it's not even really clear what the user was asking for. An article reviewing church directories, or a church directory itself? Either way I think it would pose problems: WP:OR and also WP:NOT. --Lquilter (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Christian Church Directory‎ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SECisek (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Please also note TfD nomination of Template:Christian Church Directory‎


 * Delete per norm. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Christian church directory. Tb (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Broadway actors from Silicon Valley
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * broadway actors from silicon valley


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation (intersection by location). BencherliteTalk 00:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete A very specific (over)categorization. Seems unlikely that the list could be populated substantively either. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Athletes paralyzed while playing sports
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * athletes paralyzed while playing sports


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization to have an intersection of "occupation + medical status + activity to blame for current medical status". BencherliteTalk 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment,I added the factor that the injury must have happened DURING Game Play / organized competition Slulek (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment,the factor the athletes have FULL paraplegia Slulek (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unless the category name itself states such limitations, past experience tells us they will have little or no effect on how this category functions.  We can write on the category description page until we're blue in the face, but this literally applies to any athlete paralyzed in any manner while playing any sport.  And any category that requires such elaboration or explanation to be meaningful ("Category:Athletes with full paraplegia because of injuries suffered during game play in organized competition") is really better handled as a list.  Postdlf (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - An attempt to use a category as an article topic. The author should write an article describing the topic and explaining why it is of note, and include the examples they're thinking of. It will no doubt have to be defended at AFD but that will elicit some helpful discussion as to whether this is a real topic or just more celebrity list cruft. --Lquilter (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.